Appeal dismissed, deduction rejected under section 10A, remand for section 14A disallowance issue

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Assessing Officer's rejection of the deduction under section 10A for the disallowed reimbursement expenses. Additionally, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the section 14A disallowance issue for fresh consideration to be appropriate. The judgment was delivered on 15th July 2015.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Computation of deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Computation of Deduction under Section 10A of the Act:

The assessee, engaged in software development and IT services, claimed a deduction under section 10A on the profit generated from its business. The profit and loss account included expenses reimbursed to its Associate Enterprises (AE) for onsite managers' salaries and expenses amounting to Rs. 4.83 crores, which was an international transaction requiring a Transfer Pricing (TP) study. However, the assessee disallowed this amount while computing total income, contending that no TP adjustment/study was required as the amount was not claimed as a deduction. The Transfer Pricing Officer did not examine this claim since the assessee had already disallowed the payment.

The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had similarly disallowed such claims in the preceding year, and the AO had held that the disallowed amount could not be considered as part of the income exempt under section 10A. Following the previous year's decision, the AO denied the deduction under section 10A for the disallowed reimbursement expenses.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's rejection of the claim under section 10A. The assessee contended that disallowed amounts should be eligible for deduction under section 10A as they form part of business income, relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. However, the Tribunal had previously decided against the assessee on this issue for AY 2006-07, and the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee was also dismissed.

The assessee argued that the suo-motu disallowance did not fall under the enhancement of income stated in the proviso to section 92C(4) since it was not an adjustment made by the AO. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in I Gate Global Solutions Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income held that disallowed amounts by the assessee after determining Arm's Length Price (ALP) are not considered income enhancement within the meaning of section 92C(4), thus eligible for exemption under section 10A. The assessee maintained that the TPO did not suggest any adjustment, so section 92C(4) did not apply.

The DR countered, stating that the Tribunal had previously held that such disallowances were not eligible for deduction under section 10A. The DR further argued that the decision in Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. was not applicable as the disallowance in that case was under section 36(1)(iv) due to statutory provisions, unlike the present case where the assessee disallowed the expenditure as per ALP.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not generated foreign exchange from the suo-motu disallowance and had actually spent money on reimbursements, so no income was generated from the disallowance. Hence, the Tribunal upheld the AO's rejection of the deduction under section 10A for the suo-motu disallowed reimbursement expenses, following the decision in the case of M/s Agilisys IT Services India Pvt Ltd.

2. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act:

The AO noticed that the assessee received Rs. 1.65 crores in dividend income, claimed as exempt under section 10(34), but did not make any disallowance under section 14A, arguing no expenditure was incurred to earn the dividend. The AO disallowed 5% of the dividend income under section 14A.

The CIT(A) set aside the matter regarding the disallowance under section 14A to the AO for reconsideration in light of the decision in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd (328 ITR 81) by the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the issue for fresh consideration.

Conclusion:

The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the AO's rejection of the deduction under section 10A for the suo-motu disallowed reimbursement expenses and finding no fault in the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the section 14A disallowance issue for fresh consideration. The judgment was pronounced on 15th July 2015.

---